Disney goes to trial over safety of Tower of Terror

[joel_maxwell]

Ambulance chasers. Not worth the effort to say any more.

I would like to have a front row seat when karma delivers her punishing blow to people like this.

There is a local lawyer in town that has billboards that read, "Slip. Fall. Call."... Just trash. :fork:

 

[fosse76]

I still think this is a total crock of crap.

As is your statement. Considering no one on this board has seen or had access to the plainitff's medical history and is not an expert in neurology, then you don't know if this case is a "total crock of crap."

The guy had a stroke 3 weeks later, unless he was sitting on his bum the entire 3 weeks, then there could have been hundreds of other situations that could have lead to the injury and the subsequent stroke. I could see if he had a stroke while on the ride itself, that is a little more of a realistic correlation. But come on....3 weeks?:brick:

Again, if you are not a medical expert, your opinion is uninformed. Trials are a tool to determine fact and liability. The fact that Disney hasn't settled doesn't necessarily mean Disney is confident it will win. The plaintiff may have refused all settlement offers and Disney has no choice but to go to trial.

Exactly which is what I'm saying, there is no possible way to prove that this is the case unless he visited the doctor prior to getting on ToT and got an MRI, CT scan, etc...then did the same thing directly after getting off the ride. Since this is highly unlikely and virtually impossible without introducing other variables into the equation, I don't see how they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that it was ToT that caused the tear.

That's what the trial is for. A judge obviously found that there is a question of fact that a jury should decide.

That all said, it is improbable, but not impossible, that ToT caused this man's stroke. Could it have aggravated an unknown condition which in turn caused it? Yes. But that isn't the same as direct causation. It's amusing how some people make quick judgments about juries without actually being in the jury's shoes. It's easy to have hindsight.

 

[JimJam]

The Way i see it, its their own fault... at 80 yrs old... commen sense is that you dont ride an EXTREME THRILL RIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People can be SO stupid

 

[Figment632]

See link below.

Nope. Not all the clientèle is like that, but lets face it, it draws them in from every hole in the wall or armpit of America.

lol I see I haven't set foot in a Wal-mart in over 10 years so I see what you are talking about.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

The Way i see it, its their own fault... at 80 yrs old... commen sense is that you dont ride an EXTREME THRILL RIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People can be SO stupid

He was around 68 at the time, according to the story.

 

[jakeman]

Just to clarify, I'm not picking a side on who is right and who is wrong here. I don't think we have enough information to know.

I'm guessing it would be tricky, although like you I have no specialized knowledge. But the fact that we're even talking about this makes me think Disney isn't convinced they'll be able to demonstrate a connection.

I think the easiest way would be to point out that he didn't go on any other attractions other than ToT that would cause these types of forces.

I think that connection would be thin at best, especially if he went on any other attractions, or even better, attended another theme park.

Exactly which is what I'm saying, there is no possible way to prove that this is the case unless he visited the doctor prior to getting on ToT and got an MRI, CT scan, etc...then did the same thing directly after getting off the ride. Since this is highly unlikely and virtually impossible without introducing other variables into the equation, I don't see how they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that it was ToT that caused the tear.

I agree.

There may be a way to determine timing of the tear, but I find that unlikely given that everyone's body heals at such a different rate.

To calculate an exact time and day from tear to stroke, doesn't seem plausible.

That's a pretty ballsy accusation, if that's what they're going for. If they think the forces are that intense, you'd figure this would happen all the time, which it doesn't.

I really don't see them having much of a case here, but we shall see.

They could look at the intensity of the tear and build a case that normal forces couldn't produce that condition, but that just takes you back to the multiple ride arguement.

Could it have been the 67 years of eating food fried in lard that caused his artery to weaken? Maybe he was a smoker and/or diabetic too? ToT may have HELPED him have a stroke, but the stroke was inevitable.

Just like the boy (or girl, I forget) who died on M:S - the ride didn't kill him, his bad heart did. It just took a ride to bring light to the defect.

I understand your point, but we are unsure of his diet or medical history to make a claim like that.

Im not sure you could. Although, Im sure you could find plenty of sleazy doctors that would like the ones seen on those commercials speaking on behalf of some weight loss drug.

Possibly. On the other hand, I'm sure there has been a sleazy doctor looking out for corporation a time or two! :animwink:

Thinking about it for a second...

In 1998, I think ToT was probably the most intense ride on Disney property. There was no M:S, RnRc or anything like that, right? I'm looking at G-forces here. Was TT even open?

I think the only other thing on property that could come close to exerting these types of forces would have been the verticle drop at Blizzard Beach (the name escapes me).

 

[amykissangel]

It just all makes me so angry. My grandfather had a stroke. Ten days before this, he was in a car for a 6 hour trip. Does it even make SENSE to say the car ride caused the stroke? No. How do they know the airplane ride home or car ride home didn't cause him to have a stroke? Or he ate too many pieces of cake...I DON'T KNOW! But it's all so ridiculous!

 

[Sloan]

standard of proof / burden of proof

I've seen a few mentions of 'reasonable doubt' - that's a standard in criminal trials, not civil trials.

A Plaintiff in a civil action typically only needs to meet a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, which is to say, the slightest tipping of the proverbial 'scales of justice' in their favor - 51%/49% and the Plaintiff prevails.

That said, the whole thing seems ridiculous to me too ...:brick:

 

[Master Yoda]

It just all makes me so angry. My grandfather had a stroke. Ten days before this, he was in a car for a 6 hour trip. Does it even make SENSE to say the car ride caused the stroke? No. How do they know the airplane ride home or car ride home didn't cause him to have a stroke? Or he ate too many pieces of cake...I DON'T KNOW! But it's all so ridiculous!

It all goes back to the correlation equals causation fallacy. You can prove all types of crazy things if all you need is correlation.

Traffic fatalities in the US are being reduced due to lemon imports from Mexico.

Global warming is being caused by a reduction in pirates.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Facts of this case could be very interesting, but what bothers me the most is a detail that as someone who doesn't have a medical background, I find very odd.

Regardless of what condition the arteries were in prior to the ride, if you tear one wouldn't your body give you signals that something is wrong shortly after? 23 days and then having a stroke seems too long to give any solid connection to ToT without any kind of knowledge on medical reviews that could have happened between the ride and the time of the stroke.

I agree that Disney probably wouldn't go to court if they felt they couldn't win, but if they were to loose the implications would be big for all theme/amusement parks.

I hope Disney will win this one.

 

[dandaman]

Global warming is being caused by a reduction in pirates.

Good thing we're not counting online piracy, or else your correlation might be FLAWED. :lookaroun

 

[WDWFigment]

While, on the outside this case looks frivilous, there must be evidence with the claimant's stroke that the judge believes might have been onset from ToT. That's not to say it was, but through pre trial motions, something must be a sticking point that is causing the judge to reject motions to dismiss.

We can't tell for sure, as the article is summary of the case, and we don't know what evidence was presented to Disney during the claim, what counter evidence Disney has, and how the whole claim was handled.

I went to trial once on a claim. It was the scariest week of my claims adjuster life. Just because I thought the claim was defensible (and frivilous), doesn't mean a jury will. I got lucky and the case was awarded to my client. I never tried a case after that.

Barry Novak is good at these cases, and I'm sure Corporate Legal stepped in and decided to take a stance against him and this type of case.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't judege the case off of this article. There's a lot more going on that we don't know.

Agreed completely. Although my reaction at first blush is the same as many others here, a high profile attorney wouldn't have taken this man's case were there not some chance of winning. He is most likely being paid on a contingency fee basis, and you don't do a case that could conceivably last longer than 12 years on a contingency fee basis if it's a dog (I would be surprised if Novack takes a monetary loss on this particular case even if his client wins).

If it was allowed to go to court by Disney without an arranged settlement, Disney must really feel it will win this case. There is no way they would want that ride to be put on the public chopping block since its an obvious flagship product IF they thought they could lose. If anything, we might get some backstage information about the design, implementation, and building of the ride since I'm sure the plaintiff asked for all that information to prepare their case. Now that it will be public record, it will be interesting to see just how in depth they are poking into all the information Disney has to offer on the ride.

Regardless, the plaintiff's lawyer is a complete bag troll who does nothing but recycle everything from his last case and put a new plaintiff's name on it. If you wonder why the court system is completely in peril, look no further.

Based on this lawyer's assumptions, ANYTHING that you do within 3 weeks of a stroke could be the cause of it and you should get a payout. I'm sure this is what Disney will tell the jury and there is basically no way the plaintiff can prove the ToT caused his injury beyond a reasonable doubt. The guy could have torn an artery picking up a bag of dog food for all anyone knows!

Disney could be taking the case to trial to prove that it has some teeth, not because they're overly confident that they'll win (and losing doesn't necessarily have dire implications for this type of attraction). If you are quick to settle every case, you get a reputation among plaintiff's attorneys, and that sets a bad precedent for future incidents/potential claims.

Ambulance chasers. Not worth the effort to say any more.

Barry Novack is high profile attorney. "Ambulance chasing" isn't the type of work he does by a long shot. To even be represented by Novack suggests to me that there must be at least some slight merit to the case (and that it likely got past summary judgment would support this as well).

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Just a thought, will they banish civil aviation, surely hitting turbulence and the resulting jolt would be a similar risk?

 

[benji]

This is the most ridiculous lawsuit ever! Tower of Terror has plenty of warning signs all over the queue. The old man has to be stupid to think nothing can happen to him riding a thrill ride at that age. He looks like he's a hundred years old. At that age you can get sick walking to a bathroom in your home. Tower of Terror is no ride on a carousel. Looks a little money hungry to me.:hammer:

 

[hrcollectibles]

The Hollywood Tower Hotel needs to be condemned ...It is falling apart.. The elevators never work right and seem to rise and fall at will. The inside is VERY dusty... Heck, the Legendary years at Pop Century seem to be safer.... How could Disney let one of their nicest and classiest hotels become such an eyesore on Holly Blvd???

 

[Little Princess]

There's nothing witty enough that I can think of that would remotely describe "wowww..."

 

[mickeyfan101]

I have heart problems and tot is my favorite ride. Yes, I see the warning signs, but I'm a big girl and decide to take the chance. The chance is slim to none that something will happen, would I sue if it did. NO! You can have a stroke, heart attack, etc. at any moment, most people could by mowing their lawn. Think this is a BIG waste of time and money.

 

[One Lil Spark]

Ugh... This lawsuit makes me want to drop kick a puppy. :brick:

Please, please, PLEASE let this be one of the instances where WDW let it go to court only because it's too insane for anyone to rule in the favor of the man.

 

[mike7904]

It's going to get to the point where everyone has to sign a legal disclosure prior to entering the park.

could see them adding another blurb to the back of the crowded ticket

 

[HMF]

This is one of the leading reasons I really dont like mentality of American society. I know that all citizens of this nation are not like this, but there are enough cases as ludicrous as this one, that gives our society a bad reputation globally. A sue happy reputation.

Just makes me sick.

This goes to court 12 years later? As with Mission Space there are numerous signs in the queue warning certain people not to ride. This is purely about the money. The suing party has no case whatsoever.